Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03999-10
Original file (03999-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 3999-10
3 August 2010

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
TO: Secretary of the Navy

Subj :

 

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 14 Dec 09 w/attachment
(2) HQMC JAM3 memos dtd 8 Jan 09 (sic) and 2 Mar 10
(3) HQMC MMER/PERB memos dtd 7 and 8 Apr 10
(4) Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in
effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing the
fitness report for 8 December 2007 to 8 August 2008, a copy of
which is at Tab A. He also impliedly requested removing all
references to his nonjudicial punishment (NUP) of 7 August
2008, removing the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) (MMPR-
2) letter dated 17 December 2008, Subject: Revocation of
Selection from the FY (Fiscal Year) 2008 Reserve Gunnery
Sergeant Selection Board (SMCR) (Selected Marine Corps
Reserve), and promoting him to gunnery sergeant with a date of
rank and effective date of 1 August 2008.

2. The Board, consisting of Mses. Countryman and Guill and Mr.
Storz, reviewed allegations of error and injustice on 29 July
2010, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that limited
relief should be granted. Documentary material considered by
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:

a. Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies which
were available under existing law and regulations within the
Department of the Navy.
b. The NUP was set aside because the only punishment
awarded, the revocation of Petitioner's selection for promotion
by the FY 2008 Reserve Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, was
not a legal punishment.

ec. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC)
Judge Advocate Division has commented to the effect that
Petitioner's record should be purged of all references to the
NIP, as it has been set aside.

d. In enclosure (3), the HOMC Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB) directed modifying the contested fitness
report by removing all references to the NUP that has been set
aside, but concluded that the report as modified should not be
removed, as it documents misconduct of which Petitioner has not
been exonerated.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
and especially in light of enclosures (2) and (3), the Board
finds the existence of an error warranting partial relief,
specifically, removal of the remaining references to the NUP
that has been set aside. The Board finds the revocation of
Petitioner’s selection for promotion should stand, for the same
reason the PERB did not direct completely removing the
contested fitness report. In view of the above, the Board
directs the following limited corrective action:

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing
all remaining references to his NJP of 7 August 2008, to
include the following:

{1) Unit Punishment Book entry

(2) Second sentence, paragraph 1 of CMC (MMPR-2) letter
dated 17 December 2008, Subject: Revocation of Selection from
the FY 2008 Reserve Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board (SMCR).
The sentence to be removed reads as follows: “On 7 August
2008, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violation
of Article 121 (larceny and wrongful appropriation) of the
Uniform Cede of Military Justice (UCMJ) .”

b. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.

2
¢. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such. purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.

d. That the remainder of Petitioner’s request be denied.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of, the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum
was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that
the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's
proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6{e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of

Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it
is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken
under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the
Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10290-08

    Original file (10290-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The front page of his fitness report for 18 March to 25 July 2008, a copy of which is at Tab B, verifies he had a first class PFT score of 205. d. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps Enlisted Promotion Section commented to the effect Petitioner’s request should be denied, as he “chose not to take his PFT making him unqualified for extension or reenlistment.” e. Enclosure (3) is Petitioner’s reply to enclosure (2), detailing the circumstances that prevented him from taking...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7775 13

    Original file (NR7775 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was then selected by the FY 2012 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, convened on 17 April 2012, and he was promoted to gunnery sergeant with a date of rank and effective date of 1 December 2012. d. Enclosure (4) shows that the in zone percentage selected for the FY 2006 Staff Sergeant Selection Board was 62.2. e. Enclosure (5) reflects that the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board directed removing Petitioner's fitness report for 1 April to 2 November 2006, which documented the later...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03147-11

    Original file (03147-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01607-07

    Original file (01607-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On April 15, 2005, Petitioner, through counsel, submitted an application to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) seeking removal of the January 1, 2001 to July 7,2Docket No. 01607-072001 fitness report, removal of naval records pertaining to the NJP and a remedial promotion board See enclosure (4)g. Petitioner’s request was bifurcated. Here, Petitioner did not take any action to have his fitness report removed until 15 April 2005, well after the dates of the Selection Boards...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09077-07

    Original file (09077-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06554-07

    Original file (06554-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    That board considered Petitioner for promotion, but did not select him.d. Based on the findings and action of the PERB, the Board concludes that the marginal fitness reports should not have been part of Petitioner’s naval record when he was considered for promotion in 2006.Whether Petitioner would have been selected for promotion in 2006 or not (without the marginal fitness reports) cannot be known and is largely a matter of conjecture. Moreover, when asked to provide substantive comments...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00605-06

    Original file (00605-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By correspondence dated 14 November 2003 (copy at Tab B), Petitioner was advised that his selection by the CY 2003 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board had been revoked for unspecified “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment” exhibiting failure to maintain the high standards expected of a Marine Corps staff noncommissioned officer.e. Enclosure (7) documents that a member of the Board’s staff contacted the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section and was informed that had Petitioner’s selection by the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04984-09

    Original file (04984-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10418-07

    Original file (10418-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By enclosure (2), the Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) directed that a new panel of the Board consider Petitioner’s case, and that the panel’s recommendation be forwarded to him for review and final disposition. d. In one of Petitioner’s prior cases, docket number 6843-05, the Board addressed his contention that when the FY 2005 Master Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board considered him, he had only two observed fitness reports since his restoration to active duty in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06062-07

    Original file (06062-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 14 August 2007, a copy of which is attached. You requested an advisory opinion on the revocation of Staff Sergeant Valdez’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) appointment to the grade of Gunnery Sergeant and the removal of a charge he received at Battalion level Non-Judicial Punishment (NUP) . On 3 May 2007, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, informed the Applicant that he was revoking his promotion...